Plaintiff in reliability to assurance to their detriment utilized work email system to generate threatening email comments with supervisor was intercepted and employment was terminated. Court ruled in favor of Defendant when it was not apparent if termination threatened or perhaps violated a mandate of public policy or Plaintiff’s common regulation right to privateness.
HOLDING: An employer cannot be charged for violating public insurance plan, privacy and/or discharging a worker according to restatement definition of tort of intrusion after seclusion. LEGISLATION: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B: Liability only attaches when the “intrusion is substantial and would be highly offensive towards the ‘ordinary. “Unless an employee pinpoints a ‘specific’ expression of public insurance plan violated simply by his release, it will not be labelled as wrongful and inside the sphere of public policy”. EXPLANATION: The clear mandate of community policy need to strike in the middle of a citizen’s social right, duties and responsibilities.
Individual was not fired for providing on court duty, pertaining to prior certainty or to get reporting breach of federal regulations to NRC. Plaintiff’s alleged not professional communication above email system utilized by whole company diminishes expectation of privacy. Plaintiff was not asked to disclose personal information by defendant.
JUDGEMENT: The motion in the defendant to dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice